[MUD-Dev] Same-Sex Marriage (was: Trouble Makers or Regular Citizens)

[J C Lawrence]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:43:37 -0700 
Ananda Dawnsinger <ananda at greyrealms.com> wrote:

>> From: Matthew Mihaly <the_logos at achaea.mudservices.com> 
>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Ananda Dawnsinger wrote:
>>>>From: Matthew <the_logos at achaea.mudservices.com>

>> It might not be realistic, but really, so what? Dragons aren't
>> realistic either. It might not even be internally consistent, but
>> I would argue that the #1 goal of any mud that is aiming for
>> success in terms of player-base needs to make community-enabling
>> and person-to-person relationship building their top priority.

> In the general case I'd agree with you.  And I think at this
> point, if I were given the opportunity to build a MUD world from
> scratch, I'd design it so that interracial marriage wasn't an
> issue.
...

>> If two players are in puppy love with each other (which tends to
>> be a rather ooc thing in my experience), and you tell them they
>> can't get married because some byte on their characters are
>> different, I think you'll have a couple of very unhappy
>> players. I mean, what do you care if they marry, really? Not
>> allowing them to have kids I understand.

> I've seen a lot of this as a player on a MUD where the races range
> from 18-inch fairy-like beings to 12-foot-long dragons -- where
> not only is marriage often culturally infeasable, but sexual
> contact is sometimes wildly implausable.  ...

  Sexual politics makes for ugly bed fellows.

I argue that the fault and the base of the problem is both more
subtle and implicit (and is largely identical to the same-sex
marriage debate IRL):

  Nobody has accurately/definitively defined what "marriage" is.

So, you get a public (your players) importing their own various "of
course its like this" conceptions, attempting to apply them to each
other at the level of tacit assumptions, and not being pleased when
everybody doesn't "of course" swim in the same direction.

Define your terms and principles _without_ also defining or
constraining human behaviour.  ie, you define WHAT something is, not
WHETHER or not it can happen.  To a large extent people/players are
going to do what they damn well please.  Direct force cultural
definition/modification rarely to never works the way originally
envisioned (like the french revolution "worked").  Standing up on
your MUD pulit and preaching to the massed players has no greater
probability of success ("cool" is rarely dictated).

>From what I've seen players go for "marriage" for one or both of two
reasons:

  1) They want to play house/family.

  2) They're very good friends

I suspect if you redefine your terms (as you have total editorial
control over your world story), and create two distinct
relationships which exemplify each of them seperately, make the
constraints on #1 purely physical, and then sufficiently support
that definitional difference in your world, the problem will largely
fall out.

  You wanna play house/family?  You have to physically fit.  

  You wanna be good friends, even extremely good friends?  Have at
  it.

Note that #1 is not going to need much support.  RL, players
imported conceptions,a dn the simple implict fact that all those
NPCs and in-game characters came from somewhere (which is always
unconciously assumed to be some minor variant on RL) do that for
you.  So, support #2.  Create fables and myths where #2 plays a
significant role.  Inject the terminology into the game lexicon.
Build it into your quests and in-game structures.  Make it as
implicit as you can in the fabric of your game world so that players
tend to reflect that fact by default in their social structures.
The idea is to make it "assumable".

People will wonder why the Lion doesn't eat the lamb, and whether
the lamb sleeps well or with one eye open. but they will in general
be much more willing to accept the idea of that "friendship", even
if with some amusement, than they will Tiamat buggering a pixie.
Self control can be understood and is comprehendable.  It is
conceivable for a lion to befriend a lamb, just as is is conceivable
for a Turk to befriend a Greek, an Auschwitz jew a Hitlerian nazi,
an Irish protestant a catholic, or a Serb a Croat.  There's a long
standing tradition for such unlikely friendships.  People love the
idea of interpersonal affinity overcoming such ingrained hostility.
Sexual congress between Tiamat and a pixie (outside of the Pixie
being a procurer/pimp for Tiamat (which has its own interesting
aspects)) OTOH is not so conceivable and will not only raise moral
eyebrows, but will raise arguments of the, "That can't happen!" and
"Square peg round hole!" variety which are really tough to argue as
basic world views are sundered.

  cf Superman and Lois Lane.  Consider the biological problems if
Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane ever really did get together.  The
physics don't work.  However, the romance, the friendship, and the
sexual tension DO work.  There's a difference.

"All X's hate Y's!" will get along just fine in people's minds with,
"But for some odd reason Bubba the X gets along great with Boffo the
Y!".  Blame it on confused genetics, Olaf Stapledon ("Star Maker"),
or too infrequent diaper changes as an infant.  They'll believe it,
or at least not fight it outside of the game world.  Exploit that
fact.

--
J C Lawrence                              Internet: claw at kanga.nu
----------(*)                            Internet: coder at kanga.nu
...Honorary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev